AP story points to Huntsman Jr. as Secretary of State candidate

Source: KSL-TV

SALT LAKE CITY — A story published Thursday by the Associated Press named Jon Huntsman Jr. as a possible pick to replace Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, but the former ambassador and governor has stayed tight-lipped about the possibility.

In an interview with KSL, Huntsman spoke about the need to put the "country first" with a tough presidential campaign now over. He spoke about his own plans in very general terms, sidestepping a question about what's next in his future plans.

"Being a good dad, managing a lot of projects that I find absolutely fun, interesting and satisfying," Huntsman said Wednesday.

The AP story reported a list of possible contenders for the Secretary of State, citing unnamed officials that included Huntsman.

37. My question about Huntsman

would be what are his neo con credentials. More so than what are his party identification.. Its rare but there are a couple Goobers out there who don' like the Neo Cons.. Example. Lawrence Wilkerson. How would he be as a Secretary of State.. ? He all but calls many in his party a bunch of loons.

96. The right-wingers are supposedly doing some inner soul-searching

right now. Some Democrats are already expressing the idea that the bat shit
crazy ones will no longer have all that much power since their election loss.
A great deal of intra-party fighting is supposedly going on. The Tea Party
might even be on the way out.

71. The Republicans had an aneurysm over Chris Christie

you really think they're going to nominate a guy who just spent four years in Obama's cabinet? It's actually pretty clever because a) Huntsman is eminently qualified, and b) Huntsman is the sanest and potentially most electable Republican candidate, so...assuming he could win his party's nomination (which he probably can't; he's sane and too moderate), he's politically neutralised.

6. Not sure I agree

Huntsman ran a very credible campaign as a Republican moderate. I think you're beginning to see a few of the brighter moderate Republican politicians realize that their party has abandoned them - Huntsman and Christie both come to mind, as well as Colin Powell and Robert Gates - and they are casting about for a political future. I think that so long as the Republicans head farther and farther right and the moderates get left behind, the likelihood for political compromise remains low and polarity remains high. In many respects, I think that one thing that Obama may be trying to do (very quietly) is to help jumpstart a new Eisenhower-like Republican party, one focused on environmental issues, civil rights, respect for science and humanism and fairness. Putting them in high profile positions that are not necessarily domestic or economic (SoS and Defense are both good examples) builds a cadre of Republicans that could quite possibly nucleate a new party and take it back from the extremists. As a Democrat I'd be a bit wary of this, but as a progressive, I think this would be a good thing overall.

15. I'm with you

I think that had the rethugs run Jon Huntsman instead of Mittiot, the thugs would be in the white house today. Huntsman was the one candidate who scared me the most in the sense that he could snatch a second term victory away from Democrats and I was relieved when he dropped out of the race and had nothing to do with their convention.

Huntsman represented the type of republican that understands the world in a larger context, with him being Ambassador to China--not too many of their ilk have ever been outside of the US in an official capacity roll. Sitting in on meetings isn't foreign policy experience, like lyin' ryan tried to assert. IF, like you say, they can bring about an Eisenhower style party, they may be able to rescue the adult-sane part of their party from the idiots in the clown car.

18. +1

38. I was scared of Huntsman but knew he could not make it out of the primaries. Huckabee

scared me even more, but he has some heavy baggage in his gubernatorial past that might have doomed him, once Axelrod and Plouffe sank their teeth into him. (He released a rapist on parole who went on to murder and rape again after being released, IIRC.)

7. Why? (nt)

10. So

the Democrats win the election and people are talking about giving the Repubs olive Branches? You need people that endorsed your Policies. I would consider Colin Powell before any other Repuke. For one thing Powell is loyal and I don't think the Obama administration would throw him under the Bus like the Bush\Cheney Administration did. Powell is someone you can trust. He is very experienced with Foreign Policy.

The only reason I would be hesitant about John Kerry is because that would open up a Senate seat where we need him. Scott Brown is still lurking around too.

19. I think clearly John Kerry deserves this job.

If it wasn't for Kerry we likely wouldn't have a Barack Obama Presidency and Kerry has been extremely vital to Obama as a surrogate (and unfortunately for him, Mitt Romney debate stand in). He expressed interest in the job before Hillary was offered it, he should be granted this job as a thank you for his service to the President. Oh yeah and the whole he's probably the most qualified person in the world for the gig, thing.

95. In an off year election, his chances go back up

47. This really ignores the good Democrats that MA has

In addition, Brown squandered his run by not running on his record - which means one of two things (or both) - his record could not get him elected or he ran a stupid campaign.

The election showed that he was not the nice guy that the media defined him as (which was a huge gift.)

In addition, the winner becomes the most junior Senator AND he has to run again in 2014! Imagine how the former Senator with delusions of grandeur would like that. He would be less likely to take frequent phone calls from Obama and the Secretary of State and the kings and queens. Not to mention he may not even be ranking member of a subcommittee - of which he misspoke saying he was a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

This is a special election so one of the Congressmen could run, or one of the candidates from last time who never really went against Brown. (It could be fun to have two Senators Warren from Massachusetts.)

The fact is though, Kerry is incredibly valuable in either the very influential Senate position he has or as Secretary of State. In a way, the fact that he is so talented makes him great in either role and a loss to the role that he is not in. It is very hard to see anyone doing as well as Secretary of state and a Senate without Kerry loses a foreign policy and a finance expert. (In fact, the position that lets him use all his skills was the one he sought in 2004.)

72. Nicely put.

I would personally like to see him as SOS-that is, if he wants the position. It just upsets me that the talk is of him not getting the spot because Brown might run again and win. I think the whole idea of that is stupid. Also, there are now 52 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents, they could spare Kerry. And, looking back, no one had a problem with Hillary being taken away from the Senate to become SOS and we had less of a majority then.

68. Not really, This is only speculation.

Brown might have expended him self during this election. And, besides we now have 52 Democratic senators and 2 Independants, we could spare Kerry. We were in worse shape when the job was given to Hillary Clinton and there was no talk then about the balance in the Senate. This, IMO is BS talk, stired up by those who don't want to see him get the job.

82. ...

25. I find this topic fascinating on a number of levels.

Ha! Democrats came within a hair, a storm and gaff of losing to the Republicans -- the folks who want to control your body, turn you away from the hospital and send your kid to war -- and now conciliatory attitudes are popping up all over the place like whack a mole. Folks, let's take Paul Krugman's advice and SCREW' EM.

Sheesh, you guys most have Stockholm Syndrome of some sort.

First off, such talk, so early, sure is a slap in the face to tall the marginalized Americans who -- minorities, women, gays who stepped up magnificently and won this election for Barry and for us.
"I think they earned a little political currency and Obama ought to spend it accordingly"

As illustrated by this thread, the differences between the two parties could not be more obvious --- I cannot imagine in a million years, folks on a Republican message board discussing the merits of putting a charismatic left winger in a cabinet position, let alone discussing it civilly.

Leave the Republican Party alone. Let them fix their own mess. They may be down but do not underestimate them. They are dangerous and will be sponsoring plenty of mean spirited-ness, cruelty and unkindness in the next four years. They may not have popular ideas but they have and can raise money in a heartbeat.

It has never been more clear that their party is one of fear, ours is a party of hope. They have done enough damage, we have to deal with. We cannot waste the time or energy fixing them.

I could not believe the faces of all those sad people for Mitt Romney of all people --- the most insidious, look you in the eye and lie, position changing, secretive candidate I have ever seen in my life.

Not only is the Republican party not ours or the President's to fix but do you really think that any fix or "reconciliatory" gesture or appointment would be truly welcome or interpreted as such? No way. I have seen this movie before. No fix or olive branch that comes from this side will ever be valued -- it has to come from within.

31. Personally I would not have an objection to this...

He was Obama's Ambassador to China. He has lived abroad extensively, speaks Chinese, etc.

I'm not saying he stands heads above other qualified Democrats such as John Kerry but he is the kind of moderate Republican that doesn't really have a home in that party anymore.

I also think he is the kind of man who would do what is asked of him and conform to the President's policies. He would not be one to go off and create his own foreign policy.

As for Kerry, I think that would be a very good fit BUT I don't want to lose him in the Senate. Granted he is from Massachusetts but I wouldn't want to go through another Senate campaign there with the possibility it could be won by a Republican.

I would rather not harvest the House, but especially the Senate, for Democratic candidates to serve in the new Cabinet.

75. ... but, as you say, this isn't the job for him.

Of course Joe Biden would be great, but he already has a job.

While I thought Clinton was a good senator, I feel like she really didn't do a good job, and I'm glad she's leaving it. In my dream world, the job would go to Jesse Jackson, but I'm sure it wouldn't be offered to him.

What I think Dean would be good at is AG, which is likely to be another open position.

... oh, but this is crazy talk. Dean is out with this lot of Dems. He got them all into power, and they threw him aside.

90. Clinton would be saying

"Hi there. Sorry about all the killing my husband did of your people. Lets have breakfast." Clark is very popular in the balkans outside of Serbia. Same with Clinton. I dont necessarily see the problem. World leaders realize its just business.

I'm sure there are a LOT of names being bandied about right now. Even if this is true, there's nothing that says he's a top pick, or a likely one. Just that he's on a list -- probably a list that contains 15-20 names.

I just found the original AP story and there are several names mentioned that are not Jon Huntsman -- including Kerry and Susan Rice. Rice is mentioned as a"favorite".

56. Tarred with same brush

Huntsman may be a decent person, and he may have been a pretty good ambassador, and I know I shouldn't generalize, but Republicans have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, and I wouldn't trust a Republican in any cabinet position. Obama tried to take the high road for four years, and was blocked every step of the way. Republicans have to pay the price for this in the role they play in government, now and in the future.

61. I like him

65. He walked out on President Obama before to run for President,

and he had no good works for the administration. Why him?

I had wanted to see Sen. Kerry get this position since the first administration, I held out hope in the second, because he has so much good work under the wire, but it seems as though the powers that be in Washington are going to screw him out of this.
I will be very disappointed if he isn't offered this positon and it goes to Huntsman or Rice.

81. Huntsman resigned his ambassadorship to run against Obama didn't he?

Who's to say he wouldn't bail again to run in 2016? Why give it to a repub and boost their credentials for a possible run at some point? There are plenty of well-qualified Dems out there to choose from, I don't understand the desire to fill this with a republican, especially since its a pretty high-profile position.

91. Do not put ANY rethug on a pedestal. There are NO good rethugs.

If they were truly so "moderate" and "acceptable", then they wouldn't be rethugs. They wouldn't identify themselves with a party that is so racist, anti-woman, homophobic, xenophobic, and full of warmongers.

92. The Petraeus Scandal

will scotch this idea quickly. Petraeus, as a Republican appointee, compromised national security in a big way. The Senate Dems are NOT going to put a Republican in a position of any real power at this point, for fear that these appointees will explode messily if nothing else.